Re: [P2PSIP] RFC6940: Detecting Partitioning

"Michael Chen" <michaelc@idssoftware.com> Tue, 16 October 2018 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <michaelc@idssoftware.com>
X-Original-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3253C128766 for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aaZa3bIylCqP for <p2psip@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plwbeout03-02.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtp03-02-2.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [72.167.218.214]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C6D7127333 for <p2psip@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:35:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p3plgemwbe03-03.prod.phx3.secureserver.net ([72.167.218.131]) by :WBEOUT: with SMTP id CFCZg9thyPG8ECFCZg9SG1; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:35:19 -0700
X-SID: CFCZg9thyPG8E
Received: (qmail 185093 invoked by uid 99); 16 Oct 2018 02:35:19 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 172.251.133.5
User-Agent: Workspace Webmail 6.9.49
Message-Id: <20181015193518.59ca11a9ba9389561a029f06442e67fa.84e53d5d79.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
From: "Michael Chen" <michaelc@idssoftware.com>
To: "Evgeny" <xramtsov@gmail.com>, p2psip@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:35:18 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfJY0EB/HL7yZWz8HsYXIk1BpESfoRutKC8JFns114c0D6chvfvm2+5dbFRfz6uPwDDCHXxcYMihiP1Oun1P6482S41qLHKe75qv5zYdS90R/p/vlSOlx EwhIg7g6wjzz6nWy5zcq2NQPs+lEA0r4XTmXZ+C/p44jan5SHVWd6WOUkrsbfMAQn/WJY5qtU8X1+zhiZ66DOS4EqBXGbOdEbWY=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/p2psip/ufMzQEj2z3mN3fdalzQkJLi74KA>
Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RFC6940: Detecting Partitioning
X-BeenThere: p2psip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Peer-to-Peer SIP working group discussion list <p2psip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/p2psip/>
List-Post: <mailto:p2psip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip>, <mailto:p2psip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 02:35:52 -0000


> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [P2PSIP] RFC6940: Detecting Partitioning
> From: Evgeny <xramtsov@gmail.com>;
> Date: Mon, October 15, 2018 12:56 am
> To: p2psip@ietf.org
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Bless, Roland (TM) 
> <roland.bless@kit.edu>; wrote:
> > Yes, the last hop forwarding the answer will be B, but the originating
> > node from the other end (i.e., the one answering the ping request) is 
> > a
> > different node than P's current successor.
> 
> "the one answering the ping request"? But this will be my node 
> answering the ping request.
> Ok, I'm lost. Let's consider the PingReq path:
> 
> my_node -> boot_node -> ... -> node_X -> my_node
> 
> The corresponding PingAns will be:
> 
> my_node -> node_X -> ... -> boot_node -> my_node

No, but congratulation, you just discovered a new erratum. The partition
check 10.7.4.4 says, "repeat the discovery process used in the initial
join", which refers to the 2nd paragraph after 10.5.9:

    "It SHOULD send a Ping directed at Resource-ID n+1 (directly after
its own Resource-ID)."

Section 10.7.4.4 incorrectly used the term "Node-ID". It should be:

    "P SHOULD then send a Ping for its own Resource-ID n+1 routed
through B."

Destination Resource-ID n+1 ensures that it will only be answered by the
successor of the requester.

Thanks

--Michael